See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247747205

Actor-Network Theory, Organizations and Critique: Towards a Politics of

Organizing

Article in Organization · June 2010

DOI: 10.1177/1350508410364441

CITATIONS READS

262 1,038

2 authors:

Rafael Alcadipani John Hassard

Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas The University of Manchester
170 PUBLICATIONS 2,656 CITATIONS 111 PUBLICATIONS 6,414 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rafael Alcadipani on 08 January 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Organization
17(4) 419–435

Actor-Network Theory, © The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission: sagepub.

organizations and critique:

co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1350508410364441
http://org.sagepub.com
towards a politics of organizing

Rafael Alcadipani
Sao Paulo School of Management of Getulio Vargas Foundation (EAESP-FGV), Brazil

John Hassard
Manchester Business School, UK

Abstract
In recent years the approach to social theory known as Actor-Network Theory (ANT) has
been adopted within a range of social science fields. Despite its popularity, ANT is considered a
controversial approach in that it appears to promote a sociological perspective that lacks substantive
political critique. This is argued to be particularly true in ANT’s ‘translations’ in management and
organization studies (MOS). In this article, we argue that the ‘ANT and After’ literature offers the
potential to develop such a political critique. In particular we suggest it presents the opportunity
to develop an approach that de-naturalizes organization(s), has the ability to deliver critical
performativity, and at the same time offer a reflexive approach to management and organizational
knowledge. Using organizational examples, we argue that ANT and After can offer insights relevant
to the development of a critical perspective on MOS, notably through its advocacy of a ‘political
ontology’ of organizing.

Keywords
Actor-Network Theory, ANT and After, critical performativity, management and organization
studies, political ontology

Originating in studies of science, technology and society (STS), actor-network theory (ANT)—or
the ‘sociology of translation’ (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1999b)—is an increasingly popular sociologi-
cal method used within a range of social science fields. ANT gains much of its notoriety through
advocating a socio-philosophical approach in which human and material factors are brought
together in the same analytical view. In attempting to comprehend complex situations, ANT rejects

Corresponding author:
Rafael Alcadipani, EAESP-FGV, Rua Itapeva, 474 – 11º andar – CEP 01332-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Email: Rafael.Alcadipani@fgv.br
420 Organization 17(4)

any sundering of human and non-human, social and technical elements. In a much cited article,
Michel Callon (1986) warns, for example, of the dangers of ‘changing register’ when we move
from concerns with the social to those of the technical. The methodological philosophy is that all
ingredients of socio-technical analysis be explained by common practices.
When we seek to translate an ANT approach into the sphere of Management and Organization
Studies (MOS), we are involved in the analysis of alliances or networks that ‘initiate and maintain
the superordination of individuals or groups over others’ (Grint, 1991: 149). We are thus reminded
that many actors are locked into networks of which certain elements reside outside of the focal
organization. In addition, managerial networks are seen to take recourse, not just to the network of
peer managers and control over material resources within the organization, but also, for example,
to the resources of the legal system and domestic sources of support, which are ‘invisibly meshed
into the organization’s disciplinary mechanisms’ (Grint, 1991: 149). As Latour (1987) demon-
strated similarly in the field of STS, scientists physically isolated from the rest of the world in their
search for knowledge are actually highly dependent upon a large array of supportive networks
outside the laboratory.
The conceptual tools underlying the ANT approach enable us, therefore, to study the assem-
bling and stabilizing of diverse human and non-human entities within diffuse socio-material sys-
tems (Law, 1999a). For MOS the use of these tools has been part of a movement away from a
functional emphasis on organization as a discrete structural entity and towards the study of pro-
cesses and practices of organizing, and importantly socio-technical organizing (Bloomfield and
Vurdubakis, 1999; Calás and Smircich, 1999; Hull, 1999; Lee and Hassard, 1999). ANT has been
used by writers to examine a wide range of research issues within MOS, but notably with regard to
studies of information systems and information technology (see Bloomfield and Best, 1992;
Bloomfield and Vudubakis, 1994, 1999; Hine, 1995; Vidgen and McMaster, 1996).
Although ANT has been readily deployed in a number of sociological spheres, it has been subject
to severe criticism. Walsham (1997), for example, argues that there are four main criticisms regularly
directed at ANT: namely that it offers a limited analysis of social structures; neglects issues of politi-
cal bias and morality; fails to conceptualize adequately the distinction between humans and nonhu-
mans and has problems in examining how to follow entities in the network analysis. In addition,
McLean and Hassard (2004) argue that ANT accounts have invited a range of controversies in respect
to the inclusion/exclusion of actors and networks; role of social/technical privileging and status; dis-
tinction between agency and structure; and nature and role of heterogeneous engineering.
Despite the argument of the so-called ‘post-modern turn’ in MOS—that ANT has considerable
analytical potential for the field (see e.g. Calás and Smircich, 1999)—concerns such as the above
suggest the approach is problematic in terms of the insights it holds for the development of a criti-
cal analysis of management and organizations. For critical organization studies, Reed (1997) sug-
gests that ANT is analytically under-powered in comparison to ‘traditional’ sociological perspectives
based on ‘duality and dualisms’. Similarly Whittle and Spicer (2008:14) have urged scholars from
the Critical Management Studies (CMS) movement to ‘resist translation by Actor Network Theory’,
in an argument that suggests the positioning of ANT and CMS as analytical opponents. Drawing
on the ‘further development’ (Law, 1999a) of ANT under what has become known as the ‘ANT and
After’ literature (see Law and Hassard, 1999; Latour 2003, 2005b, 2007a, 2007b; Law, 2007), as
well as some of the principal characteristics of CMS (see Alvesson et al., 2009; Fournier and Grey,
2000; Grey, 2007; Grey and Willmott, 2002), our article assesses if ANT is really incapable of
offering ideas and insights that may help to develop a critical perspective on management and
organizations. An important caveat to our task is that rather than a singular and clear cut approach,
ANT is instead, as Mol (1999) suggests, a ‘multiple’ one, with many usages and interpretations
Alcadipani and Hassard 421

(see also Brown and Capdevilla, 1999; Woolgar et al., 2009). As ‘(r)ealities have become multiple.
Not plural: multiple’ (Mol, 1999: 74) ANT is performed differently in the research accounts in
which it has been deployed (Mol, 2009). After discussing what is critical in MOS, we will charac-
terize the ANT approach that we espouse in order to later access ANT’s (in)ability to provide a
critical perspective for MOS. Drawing upon insights from the ANT and After literature—and in
particular its handling of ‘ontological politics’—we suggest ultimately that ANT can indeed be of
value for developing a critical perspective on organization(s).

What is ‘critical’ in management and organizational studies?

Although elements of critical thought have been present in the social sciences since the work of
anarchists (e.g. Mikhail Bakunin), utopian socialists (e.g. Henry de Saint-Simon) and communists
(e.g. Karl Marx), it is in the past 40 years that ‘critical’ analysis in MOS has developed as a discern-
ible institutionalized research movement (Adler et al., 2007). While the origins of such critical
work lie mainly in Marxist approaches (e.g. Bendix, 1956; Braverman, 1974), subsequent critical
thinking in MOS has incorporated postmodernist thought (e.g. Calás and Smircich, 1999; Hassard
and Parker, 1993; Hassard et al., 2008). In this context, CMS has emerged as a movement that
attempts to encompass a range of (critical) epistemological traditions—ranging from critical the-
ory (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992) to postcolonialist studies of management (Prasad, 2003)—in
the various academic specialities of the field (for overviews of CMS see Adler et al., 2007; Alvesson
et al., 2009; Grey and Willmott, 2005). It can be argued that, nowadays, CMS incorporates a large
percentage of critical work in MOS.1
As CMS perspectives often reflect qualitatively different epistemological and ontological
assumptions it is no surprise that, in Adler’s (2002: 388) words, ‘too few of us [in CMS] would ever
be able to agree on anything much’2 (Adler, 2002: 388). Given such diversity in CMS offerings, a
common concern has been to discuss and define what actually counts as this type of academic work
(e.g. Adler et al., 2007; Alvesson et al., 2009; Fournier and Grey, 2000). Parker (2002) proposes that
when academics claim to be conducting ‘critical’ work in MOS they tend to display a broadly left-
wing/liberal political identity coupled with a suspicion of positivist methodology. Fundamentally,
CMS does not find mainstream management to be ‘intellectually coherent and/or ethically defensi-
ble’ (Willmott, 1995: 36). As such, it seeks to challenge the authority and relevance of mainstream
management thinking and practice insofar as it tends to mean ‘knowledge of management becomes
knowledge for management and alternative voices are silenced or marginalized’ (Alvesson et al.,
2009: 6, emphasis in original). Some of the goals of CMS, therefore, are to: challenge the oppressive
character of management and organization (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Adler, 2002), maintain a
critical stance towards instrumental reason (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996), oppose dominant power,
ideology, managerial privilege and hierarchy (Adler et al., 2007) and analyse relations between
power and knowledge (McKinlay and Starkey, 1998), especially to show how forms of knowledge
that appear to be neutral can serve to reinforce asymmetrical relations of power. In this sense CMS
implies opposition to oppressive management and organizational practices, while seeking to inspire
and promote (social) reform in the interests of the under- or un-privileged, as well as emancipation
from and/or resistance to ideologies, institutions, and identities that tend to fix individuals into unre-
flectively reproduced ideas, intentions, and practices (Alvesson, 2008).
One of the most influential attempts to define the boundaries that make a work ‘critical’ in MOS
was produced by Fournier and Grey (2000) (see also Grey and Willmott, 2005). They advocate that
CMS organizes itself around three core elements—‘de-naturalization’, ‘reflexivity’ and ‘(non)per-
formative intent’. De-naturalization refers to ‘uncovering the alternatives that have been effaced by
422 Organization 17(4)

management knowledge and practice (...) CMS is concerned with the proposition that things may
not be as they appear’ (Fournier and Grey, 2000:18). As such, de-naturalization means not assum-
ing that management, its various characteristics and organizational realities are the given order of
things, which consequently implies that things could be ‘different’. Reflexivity relates to the fact
that CMS involves intense reflexions about its epistemological, ontological and methodological
stances. In so doing, it challenges the taken-for-granted objectivism and scientism usually present
in mainstream positivist management research (Fournier and Grey, 2000: 19). And the (non)perfor-
mative element basically refers to the avoidance of knowledge creation that is driven by instrumen-
tal efficacy and the efficiency-exclusive concerns that are commonplace in the realms of
management and organizations (Fournier and Grey, 2000: 17).
The Fournier and Grey (2000) discussion, however, has been taken as a strong indication that
CMS has become obsessed with epistemological and ontological dilemmas with the consequence
of ignoring the politics of the workplace (see Thompson, 2004). Thompson and O’Doherty (2009),
for example, argue that undue reflexivity about labour processes and relativism in terms of organi-
zational knowledge are not appropriate ways of challenging managerialism in theory or practice.
In addition, Thompson (2004) argues that CMS tends to emphasize a form of meta-theorizing
whose focus on denaturalization and deconstruction problematizes everything and resolves noth-
ing, thus making explicit a lack of critical engagement with ‘reality’. And similarly, CMS has been
criticized for moving away from engaging with organizational practices and participants (Spicer et
al., 2009); or more precisely, that the (non)performative stance is understood as though CMS were
advocating anti-performativity altogether (Spicer et al., 2009).3
In this context, the notion of ‘critical performativity’ (CP) has emerged as a potential solution to
the problems of the supposed anti-performative character of CMS,4 at the same time that ‘critique’
in MOS has become more concerned with practice (see Messner et al., 2008; Spicer and Bohm,
2007). A first step in the promotion of CP has indeed been to broaden the notion of performativity
itself. Fournier and Grey (2000: 17) for example adopt a technical meaning (Alvesson et al., 2009)
for the term (i.e. ‘to subordinate knowledge and truth to the production of efficiency’), although
generally the CP notion takes performativity as signifying more straightforwardly ‘intervention in
practice’ (Spicer et al., 2009: 543). Above all CP ‘involves active and subversive intervention into
management discourses and practices’ (Spicer et al., 2009: 538). The aim is to move CMS beyond
‘cynicism and negativity’ by recognizing that critique also involves an affirmative movement
(Spicer et al., 2009). For Alvesson et al. (2009: 23) CP is underscored by an understanding that cri-
tique can incorporate positive impulses alongside its reflexive and deconstructive course, in order to
avoid becoming only a negative force and, as such, marginalized within the academic world.

ANT and After: bringing politics back in

Having explored some key characteristics of contemporary CMS, we now discuss notions associ-
ated with the ANT version we espouse in order to explore subsequently whether our favoured
approach can contribute towards a ‘critical’ analysis of organization(s).
ANT suggests that things take form and acquire attributes as a consequence of their relations
with others (Law, 1994, 1999a, 1999b). Law (2002) argues that whilst entities in their broadest
sense are usually conceived of as having stability and uniqueness, in contrast ANT advocates that
they are a result achieved when different heterogeneous elements are continually assembled
together (see also Callon, 1986; Law, 1999a). As ANT regards entities as produced in relations
and applies this ruthlessly to materials, it can be understood as a ‘semiotics of materiality’
(Law, 1999a: 3).5 In this way, a central feature of ANT is to attempt to explain how ‘ordering
Alcadipani and Hassard 423

effects’—from devices (e.g. Law, 1988) to organizations (e.g. Law, 1994)—are performed into
being. Although the ‘T’ of the ANT acronym stands for ‘Theory’, it is thus better understood as a
methodological approach (see Latour, 2005c, Law, 2004, 2007). In this way, ANT can be seen as
an approach to the field that offers analytical tools that can be applied to narrative knowledge, be
they organizational or otherwise (cf. Czarniawska, 2009: 156).
Although early ANT work developed with the aim of exploring explicit or implicit dynamics of
power (e.g. Callon and Latour, 1981; Callon and Law, 1982; Latour, 1987; Law, 1986;—see also
Clegg, 1989; Czarniawska and Hernes, 2005), the approach has frequently been accused of being
politically ‘neutral’ (see Amsterdamska, 1999; Ausch, 2000; Haraway, 1992; Star, 1991). To clarify
this matter, it can be argued that while ANT is all about power, in contrast to CMS it inverts the
order of scrutiny: for ANT, power is an explanandum, not the explanans, a position that is devel-
oped in literature on ANT and After (see below). In addressing power, ANT has been accused of
possessing a narrative that includes only the manager, entrepreneur or scientist’s point of view, this
leading ultimately to the charge of managerial bias (see Star and Griesemer, 1989: 390). ANT’s
critics also claim it is inappropriate for developing a ‘critical’ analysis of organization(s) (see Reed,
1997; Whittle and Spicer, 2008), mainly because ANT is considered incapable of delivering a
reflexive, non-performative and de-naturalized approach to MOS (see Whittle and Spicer, 2008).
Consequently, it appears incapable of informing critical performativity in MOS.
This supposed lack of political engagement has, however, been addressed by some of ANT’s
main proponents. Law (1991) has suggested that accepting ‘epistemological relativism’ does not
imply political ignorance, anonymity or neutrality. He suggests that the consequences of ordering
effects must be understood in terms of inclusions and exclusions that are created as well as their
effects. Thus for Law (1997b) politics is about appreciating hierarchical distributions, but also
about understanding how such orderings can create specific inclusions and exclusions which are
performed in ‘heterogeneous’ ways. Taking colonialism as an example, Law (1997b) argues that
this is not a ‘single system’ and that such forms of domination are always performed multifariously
and through different sets of political relations. Elsewhere, Law (1999a) suggests, additionally, that
‘asymmetries’ can be created inside the network building process, arguing that the possibility of
exerting control reflects the central location one entity might hold in a materially heterogeneous
network, this serving to facilitate the processing of information from the periphery to the centre,
thus enabling political ‘action’ (see also Latour, 1987; Law 1986, 1999b).
Despite the initiatives mentioned above, perhaps the place where attempts to establish a clear
ANT position on politics and political forces is most robustly made is in the literature popularly
known as ‘ANT and After’.6 This literature tackles the question of ANT’s tendency to analyse order-
ing simplistically, with the consequence of potentially ‘naturalizing’ orderings and following a
‘managerial’ stance (see Law and Hassard, 1999). As a way of dealing with ANT’s ‘problems’ (Law
and Hassard, 1999), works in ANT and After have attempted to emphasize even more of a relational
stance. This is achieved by challenging, more explicitly, traditional forms of representation. Latour
(1999c), for example, argues that representation is usually thought to be established by using words
to express the ‘real’. This, however, assumes reality as being ‘out there’ and entities as essences that
exist discretely in the order of things. Contrary to how representation tends to be addressed, Latour
(1999c) states that things are always ‘assembled’ into being, rather than existing ‘out there’, inde-
pendently, or being the product of exclusively human interpretation. Latour (2002, 2005c) thus
wishes to reframe the idea of construction in social science as material ‘assembling’ and ‘reassem-
bling’. To argue that a fact is constructed is usually to say that it is not real (i.e. socially constructed),
whilst in other sciences and also in common-sense to stress that something has been constructed is
to argue that it has a modest yet visible origin. One of the advantages of following the construction
424 Organization 17(4)

process as ‘assembling’ is that it is possible to investigate how connections between heterogeneous

elements become established, how associations are made and unmade, how different elements inter-
associate with each other, and how assemblages and facts emerge as outcomes of such processes.7
Thinking about construction in terms of common sense ‘assembling’ allows us to consider that
things could fail or be otherwise (Latour, 2005c).
For Mol (2002) similarly, entities are enacted8 and performed into being through materially
heterogeneous practices. By foregrounding ‘practices’, this notion helps us to go beyond tradi-
tional forms of representation, reinforcing the claim that nothing exists autonomously without
relations that sustain entities, which is a clear stance against naturalizing ordering or viewing it in
a simplistic way. Furthermore, ANT and After argues that realities are enacted in the processes of
knowing (see Law, 2004; Law and Singleton, 2005; Law and Urry, 2004). For Law (2007: 15) dif-
ferent narratives ‘enact’ realities rather than simply ‘describe’ them, and thus are a ‘version of the
better and the worse, the right and the wrong, the appealing and the unappealing’. As Law (2007:
15) continues ‘There is no innocence. The good is being done as well as the epistemological and
the ontological’. For ANT and After, accounts are therefore not only political (Law, 2004, 2007;
Law and Urry, 2004), they are also ontologically political (Law, 2004; Law and Urry, 2004; Mol,
1999, 2002). One result of thinking in ontologically political terms is that ‘every time we make
reality claims in science we are helping to make some social reality more or less real’ (Law and
Urry, 2004: 396).
Combining ontology with politics thus suggests that ‘the condition of possibilities are not given’
(Mol, 1999: 74), but are in the making. Realities are not immutable—they are shaped, enacted and
contested. Ontological politics is connected with the way in which the real is implicated in the
political and vice versa, meaning that things could always be otherwise (Law, 2008; Mol, 1999).
The concept of ontological politics is based therefore on the notion that things might be ‘different’.
By questioning traditional forms of representation, ANT and After has thus challenged conven-
tional politics. A key assumption of political representation is the need to be ‘faithful’ (Latour,
2005b) and thus to consider entities and events as absolute truths or untruths (Latour, 2003, 2004a,
2004c, 2005b). Political decisions are assumed to be taken on the basis of ‘facts’ presented as
unambiguous. However, as ANT does not assume entities to be discrete, singular and unproblem-
atic, then traditional notions of politics ‘can only fail’ (Latour, 2004b). When exploring problem-
atic political issues through this approach, Latour (2005a) has used the term ‘Thing’ to refer
etymologically to matters at the heart of an assembly in which discussion requires judgement to be
reached in common, and through the designation of an ‘archaic agora’. Hence, within ANT and
After, politics is about Things; it is about controversies surrounding existence and the denial of
singularity and championing of multiplicity.
Politics is not limited therefore to how it has usually been understood—it is not exclusively
about ‘giving voice’ by or in itself (Latour, 2005a, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c), but can also be based, for
instance, on how laboratory assemblies enact objects in order to give voice to them. The point here
is to try to compare different techniques of re-presentation by arguing that there are many other
ways of carrying out politics than usually considered (Latour, 2007b). Rather than being an essence,
procedure or domain of life, politics is something that ‘moves’, it ‘turns around a topic’ and can
only exist when there is an active issue (Latour, 2007c). This political project argues that it is nec-
essary to readdress the way that entities are analysed, i.e. to examine assemblages of heterogeneous
elements, rather than to account solely for singularity in human and social aspects. This involves
developing a ‘cosmopolitics’,9 a term borrowed from the work of Isabelle Stengers (see Stengers,
1997). The idea of cosmos is literally to encompass every-‘Thing’ in political accounts. It involves
a double injunction—to engage in a form of ontological politics and to allow all kinds of ‘others’
Alcadipani and Hassard 425

to object to the stories that are being told. This approach has ‘the burning desire to have the new
entities detected, welcomed and given a shelter’ (Latour, 2005c: 224).
Although we can identify differences between ontological politics and cosmopolitics more
important perhaps are the similarities in their propositions. Overall, ANT and After’s political con-
cerns relate to how realities are enacted into being and different entities can be constructed; they
highlight that things could be ‘otherwise’ and that realities are not ‘destiny’ (Law, 2007). Such poli-
tics tries to make explicit how positive and negative realities or articulations are constructed within
all sorts of practices and arenas. Describing is thus about performing ‘good or bad’; although rather
than being treated in isolation good and bad are interwoven, or ‘partially connected’ (Law, 2004;
Strathern, 1991). ANT and After appears therefore to have given political issues greater consider-
ation through concern with understanding the consequences associated with the ‘performance of
realties’ (Law, 2004). It appears, also, to shy away from assuming the ‘stabilization of relations’
(Latour, 2005c), trying instead to place in the foreground all controversies associated with what are
usually regarded as facts. Ultimately it attempts to open the political notion to encompass disputes
that are usually sundered from ‘traditional’ forms of politics. In this way, it clearly challenges
espoused denaturalization.
These, then, are fundamental elements of an ANT version that we would espouse—one that has
the aim of disputing the idea that ANT is apolitical. In fact, ANT and After seems to bring politics
back into the approach substantially. To indicate that ANT and After deals with politics, however,
is not to argue simultaneously that it can be deployed to inform a critical approach in MOS. Thus,
in the next section we will discuss if ANT can act as such an analytical resource to CMS (cf.
Alvesson et al., 2009: 15).

Towards a politics of organizing

ANT insights and developments mostly originate from empirical sociological investigation (Latour,
1988a, 1988b, 2004b; Law, 1986; Mol, 2002). Although the approach is rooted in the analysis of
organizations (e.g. Law, 1994; Mol, 2002) it has never been perceived as contributing to field of
‘Management and Organization Studies’ in a strict sense. If anything, its nearest alignment has
been to the sociology of work, where it has been defined as a ‘non-conventional’ network approach
(Grint, 1991). This positioning, however, is perhaps something that has, ironically, contributed to
the perspective’s appeal and usefulness for MOS (cf. Czarniawska, 2009: 155).
The various ANT works based on organizations imply that such entities are perceived as con-
tinuous and unfinished, precarious and partial—a permanent process that generates more or less
stable effects; a heterogeneous emergent phenomenon; a verb (Cooper and Law, 1995). Analysing
organization(s) in this form—stressing that the noun ‘organization’ can only exist as a continuous
result of organizing—challenges what mainstream MOS approaches usually accept as given or
taken-for-granted (Cooper and Law, 1995; Knox et al., 2007). As such, ANT can be seen as a strong
ally for moving the focus of MOS from formal organizations to ‘organizing’ (cf. Czarniawska,
2009: 158).
Analysing organizing via ANT, therefore, is to attempt to address by which means a diffuse and
complex system, comprised of humans and nonhumans, ‘becomes networked’ (Bloomfield and
Vurdubakis, 1999). Organizations are outcomes and products of continuing process—relations
and practices that are materially complex and whose ordering can only be addressed, locally and
empirically, as ‘in the making’ (see Cooper and Law, 1995; Law, 1994). The approach implies that
organizations and their components are effects generated in multiple interactions, rather than existing
merely in the order of things (Latour, 1987, 2005b; Law, 1992, 1999b).10
426 Organization 17(4)

For instance, one of the authors of this article conducted empirical research into one of the larg-
est newspaper printing sites in the UK. Following an ANT approach, rather than depicting a site
with stable and fixed characteristics that existed in the order of things, it became possible to discern
how the factory was constantly enacted by the articulation of as diverse a set of elements and prac-
tices as: press operatives working on machines; paper reels being replaced and ink being distrib-
uted; budgets being made and adjusted; market data being gathered and interpreted; Health and
Safety procedures being applied or disregarded … all sorts of interactions, feelings, emotions, etc.
In fact, the printing site was produced in a ‘multiple’ (Mol, 1999) way every time its events were
performed. This indicated that the site was constructed out of ‘multiplicity’ and its appearance of
being the ‘same’ printing site relied on various practices, actions and performances that, while dif-
fering from one occasion to another, also maintained a sense of similarity (Mol, 1999).11
This research suggested that whereas the enactment of different practices making ‘the factory’
can be harmonious in respect of some events it can also be discordant in others. Whereas on certain
occasions the way production reports were completed by press operatives and maintenance person-
nel was uncontested, on others controversies emerged over which particular department would be
subsequently called to account for a specific fault or to sort out a particular production problem.
Furthermore, within the factory there were various disputes (e.g. related to crew staffing, overtime
payments, press cleaning, etc.) between management and operatives that, whilst helping to ‘per-
form’ the factory, were enacted by factors as diverse as spread sheets and charts, human resources
practices, industrial relations traditions, the Managing Director’s views, memories of how things
used to be … (and again) interactions, feelings, emotions, etc. Each of these entities was complexly
enacted into being, with for instance, the practice of Managing Director being partially granted by
the conditions of occupying a central position from which s/he could have privileged access to, for
example, software, databases, spreadsheets, etc. (see Law, 1999b).
To expand, the scenario of disputes between workers and managers, but within which senior
managers’ views ultimately prevail, is largely taken for granted in the contemporary newspaper
industry. This can be contrasted markedly, however, with the situation prior to the early 1980s, when
management generally played a marginal role in managing shop-floor affairs. This was instead a
duty performed by the ‘Chapel’,12 a largely self-governing entity whose main aim was to protect and
guarantee the interests of printers (Sykes, 1960; Thompson, 1957). The nature of such disputes (or
lack of them) is thus established into being through the diverse interactions of complex elements and
practices, ranging from modes of performing industrial relations to the occupational consequences
of agendas aimed at reducing trade union power in the UK. In this way, there is nothing inevitable
and natural about the printing site. It can only exist if various entities and practices, both human and
material, are enacting that site into being in a continuous process of organizing. In addition, as the
Chapel example suggests, things can always be ‘different’, even the day-to-day handling of staff and
staffing issues, seemingly the most universally accepted of contemporary management roles.
The key de-naturalization element of critical approaches to MOS therefore relates to the view
that management and organizational realities are not the given order of things and as such could be
otherwise. Reflecting on the newspaper industry example, we suggest how ANT and After insights
may help to put organizing into the foreground of analysis, indicating that management and organi-
zational realities are not ‘destiny’, this being a key insight from ANT and After politics and also an
assumption of CMS (see above). As such, to analyse organizing rather than organization is not just
a methodological issue, it is also a political one. ANT can thus help to strengthen a posture in which
‘organizations have never explained anything; organizations have to be explained’ (Czarniawska,
2006: 1557). This is a position that is not only political but which helps in de-naturalizing organiza-
tions and management.
Alcadipani and Hassard 427

It can be argued, however, that ANT will not assist meaningfully in the practice of de-naturaliz-
ing organization(s)—and thus in offering valuable organizational critique—if it fails to deliver CP.
To take organization(s) as complex gatherings of multiple elements and practices opens up the pos-
sibility of making positive changes to particular organizational processes,13 which is a key element
underscoring the possibility of delivering CP (see Spicer et al., 2009). Similarly, for ANT and After
politics, in order to modify politically a state of affairs it is necessary to appreciate that social and
organizational forces are comprised of different ties upon which resistance can be applied. If domi-
nation, exclusion, power etcetera are to be analysed and challenged, it is necessary to understand
how they are constructed in order to create effects (Latour, 2004c). For Latour (2005c), political
relevance is related to registering as many associations as possible in order that that it may be pos-
sible to change a state of affairs through grasping its complexities and multiplicities. This is why,
for Latour (1999c, 2004c, 2005c), the ANT approach is also a political project.
Empirical works drawing on ANT and After politics have thus analysed how knowledge of such
associations can help us perform interventions in practice (see Routledge, 2008). In tandem, we
have argued how the practical performance of interventions is a defining characteristic of CP. By
way of example, Hinchliffe et al. (2005) discuss a dispute about the proposed location of a new
building development in Birmingham, UK, a construction site that would have negative environ-
mental and community consequences. They studied how the presence in the Birmingham area of
creatures under threat of extinction in the British Isles, water voles, could prevent the construction
programme taking place, as it is unlawful to destroy the habitats of endangered species. Detailing
a series of associated controversies surrounding the detection of water voles at the location,
Hinchliffe et al. (2005) described how, by engaging with factual characteristics of water voles
when trying to account for their existence (e.g. they do not live in the same places as rats, their
prints are different, etc.), these creatures were ‘performed into being’ by local ecologists’ practices.
By illustrating the essentially complex nature of the associations involved in performing the set-
ting, Hinchliffe et al. (2005) were able to deploy insights from cosmopolitics in order to extend the
possibilities for political action. This indicates that when multiplicity is taken into account new
possibilities are opened and ‘negative’ aspects can be undermined.
Given the complexities of practical intervention, however, a relevant question for ANT and
After politics is whether there are, as Mol (1999) suggests, ‘real options’ available and if so which
should be chosen. This question can also be directed at the CP goal of fostering intervention in
practice. Asking if it is possible to choose among options underlines a view that instead of being
‘multiple’, objects and realities are ‘plural’ (Mol, 1999). To argue that even the same entity is mul-
tifariously enacted by a different set of practices—i.e. that it is done differently, that it is ordered
differently—is not to say that there are various singular versions which comprise a plural entity.
Neither is it to say that there is one entity that is subjected to multiple interpretations depending on
which social group perceives it. To stress the latter is to follow a ‘perspectivist’ view (Mol, 1999),
suggesting that different individuals have, with their specific social backgrounds, to look to the
same ordered effect from different standpoints and, as a result, consider it differently. This high-
lights the diversity of views available when expanding perspectives for examining the same entity.
In most cases, such differing perspectives are mutually exclusive, discrete, and exist side by side,
whilst keeping the object itself ‘untouched’ (Law, 2002; Mol, 2002) and thus regarded as singular.
As a result, it leaves aside the multiplicity of enactments and their interrelations.
Following insights from the ANT and After literature, difference, then, is not a matter of per-
spectives on a single object, but the performance of different objects in different sets of relations.
To avoid perspectivism this approach proposes to foreground practices, events, and the nature of
materiality. As Law (2002: 59) points out ‘if we are interested in multiplicity then we also need to
428 Organization 17(4)

attend to the craftwork implied in practice … realities are not explained by practices and beliefs but
are instead produced in them’. Thus, talking about multiplicity in practice demands empirical
examination (see Latour, 1999c; Mol, 2002).
Mol (1999) suggests that while on some occasions different realities may include each other, on
others they may be contradictory. Thus, multiplicity is not about pluralism, i.e. about separate enti-
ties that stand apart in homogeneous fields. It suggests instead that the various versions performed
have relations between them—they may be opposed, but they may also be complementary. To
separate them as if they were plural, however, is to bypass and ignore the complex interconnections
between them. Achieving rational choice in terms of political desirability is neither easy nor
straightforward (Mol, 1999). To such a view there is no general or total solution—ANT and After
politics can only be taken into account in local empirical settings (Law, 2007; Mol, 2002). We are
minded, however, that to seek local and specific solutions, rather than generic ones, is also an aim
of some versions of CMS (see Adler et al., 2007; Alvesson et al., 2009; Spicer et al., 2009).
In this way, domination, forms of exclusion, hegemonies, racism, gender inequalities etc. are
never generic effects and are not created in simple relations. As noted earlier, Law (1997b) argues
in this vein that colonialism is not a single system and that that makes it a much stronger ‘distribu-
tion’. Forms of domination are always performed multifariously by different sets of relations and
their multiplicity has to be analysed in practice. An important element of ANT and After’s ‘critical
engagement’ (Routledge, 2008) is thus to defend, after empirical examination of specific settings,
particular practices as ‘more favourable’ than others; as witnessed for example in ANT studies of
education (Verran, 1999), health care (Mol, 2008) and animal feeding (Law and Mol, 2008). This
is so because there are multiple realities which can be contrasted against one another; even though,
as noted above, this is a complex issue and one that also indicates there is no ‘general solution’
(Law, 2008). For Haraway (2008) similarly, in terms of intervention the question is how to interfere
in particular realities within particular locations in order to generate less negative alternatives, i.e.
how to strengthen realities that otherwise would be fragile. The issue of undermining problematic
aspects (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism)—a key proposition in the CMS agenda—and thus delivering
CP, becomes one of comparing practices and helping to enact some realities rather than others
within specific empirical settings.
To analyse in this manner, however, risks the charge that such arguments are restricted to socio-
logical reverie and cannot reflect ‘real’ intervention or help deliver CP. ANT and After considers
there is no reality outside of relations and that realities are constructed within the processes of
knowing. In such a view, there is not a priori a researcher/object dichotomy; both are produced as
outcomes of the practices of research (Law, 1994). The researcher, therefore, is not just observing,
s/he is actively constructing what it is being studied.
Furthermore, for ANT and After politics, rather than simply describing realities, such accounts
readily ‘enact’ them into being. Thus, when preferable practices are highlighted, they are given
credit and can become stronger in terms of ontological ties and linkages (cf. Haraway, 2008).
Analogously, when the same happens to problematic practices, they may become weaker. As such,
by performing accounts that show how ‘the profit imperative, patriarchy, racial inequality, and
ecological irresponsibility often turn organizations into instruments of domination and exploita-
tion’ (Domain statement, Critical Management Division, Academy of Management)14 and discuss-
ing alternatives for management and organizations, critical work in MOS may help to undermine
dominant practices or, at least, to enact them in specific places where they can be challenged. This
is especially important when CMS work is used in teaching, given that some students will have
never come across such alternative realities.15 Again, this is a matter of delivering CP. There always
arises however the possibility that a better appreciation of the instruments of domination and
Alcadipani and Hassard 429

exploitation may enable unscrupulous managers to mobilize the insights of CMS to develop more
sophisticated (but not of course uncontested) systems of control. Also, in terms of performativity,
from what we have discussed so far ANT does not seem to foster the kind of MOS knowledge that
helps to improve organizational efficiency or maximize output. As such, it does not deliver ‘techni-
cal’ performativity. ANT however may help to indicate that performativity is not only related to
instrumentality, but also concerns how ontological ties and sociological accounts can help us to
enact specific realities rather than others. There always remains, of course, the potential attribution
problem that while ANT may not intend to deliver technical performativity, it may inadvertently
contribute to it.
Thus far we have discussed how ANT can inform accounts that seek to de-naturalize and criti-
cally engage with management and organizations. Such an approach wishes simultaneously to
avoid the creation of instrumental knowledge about management and organizations whilst fostering
CP. In this respect, however, criticism has been directed against what some suggest is ANT’s ‘prob-
lematic epistemology’. Whittle and Spicer (2008) argue that ANT’s epistemology fails to provide a
thoroughly reflexive theory of knowledge. The main problems are that it: ‘relies on the assumption
that social life can be observed objectively by scientists using esoteric concepts’, is ‘understood
through a process of scientific verification’, and can be ‘explained without a reflexive examination
of the philosophical and political assumptions that accompany the researcher’ (Whittle and Spicer,
2008: 9). It is argued that ANT tends to ‘impose its own theoretical lexicon, attempts to verify and
generalize a linear model and engages in a limited reflexivity about its own true claims’ (Whittle and
Spicer, 2008: 10). In light of ANT and After, however, it is possible to question such strong episte-
mological criticisms. The above critics take ANT as a singular whole and thus tend to disregard the
nature of difference presented in the various versions of ANT (see above). Also as noted, ANT and
After makes explicit that realities are constructed within the processes of knowing (see Latour,
1999a, 2004a, 2005b; Law, 2004; Mol, 2002) and thus there is not a priori a researcher/object
dichotomy, for both are produced as outcomes of the practices of research. Hence, the researcher too
is a product of research practices; s/he does not possess total command of the research process and
knowledge generation. It can be misleading therefore to suggest that ANT assumes there is an exter-
nal reality that can be observed by a conscious researcher, even though some early studies might be
suggestive of such a position (see Callon, 1986). By highlighting the role of accounts in the produc-
tion of realities, ANT and After shows that knowledge is also political. Furthermore, by helping to
challenge the ontology of mainstream MOS, ANT and After offers ‘materials for comparison and
critical reflection, from both theoretical and methodological points of view’ (cf. Czarniawska, 2009:
155). The approach therefore seems capable of delivering a sense of reflexivity for MOS.
In sum, we have argued that in ‘bringing politics back in’ ANT and After helps, on the one hand,
to produce accounts which are capable of delivering de-naturalization and reflexivity, while on the
other (in being non-technically performative) to achieve the goals of CP. As such, ANT and After
can act as an analytical resource to CMS (cf. Alvesson et al., 2009: 15) through developing a
reflexive politics of organizing.

Conclusions
Drawing on the ‘ANT and After’ literature, as well as what are usually considered key characteris-
tics of CMS, this article has examined whether ANT is capable of offering insights for developing
a critical perspective on organization(s). It has argued that political insights from the ANT and
After literature are relevant to making explicit the performance of, for example, profit imperatives,
patriarchy, racial inequality, and ecological irresponsibility, as well as bundles of relations and
430 Organization 17(4)

associations that assist in enacting organizations as instruments of domination. In such a view,

exploitation, racism, patriarchy etc. do not in themselves explain anything—they are what pre-
cisely have to be explained (see Czarniawska, 2006; Latour, 2004b, 2005c). Thus whereas on the
one hand ANT, via a rejection of positivist assumptions and means-ends rationalities, has the
potential to be used in ways that recognize ordering is not inevitable and could be ‘otherwise’, on
the other CMS insights can enrich ANT, as they call attention to issues that have been frequently
neglected by those applying the approach. In contrast to traditional modernist modes of critique,
ANT, by defending an engagement with practices in specific settings and contexts, can help to
develop a type of MOS critique which does not assume a ready-made repertory of how things are
and how they should work. What ANT and After offers is to underscore the politics in organizing.
ANT and After makes us consider that, rather than being treated in isolation, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are
interwoven. By proposing to analyse organizing in ‘practices’, ANT and After does not impose a
general solution: in contrast it highlights that ‘good’ can only be made locally and empirically. In
so doing, it can also serve to undermine the ‘bad’. The issue, then, is not to ‘avoid translation by
ANT’ (Whittle and Spicer, 2008), but to produce ANT accounts that help us develop critical theory
in the form of a political ontology of organizing.

Notes
1 It is important to note that CMS has been accused of excluding other critical voices in the field (see
Ackroyd, 2004; Bohm and Spoelstra, 2004; Wray-Bliss, 2004)
2 Various debates have taken place, for example, over the nature of critique in CMS (e.g. Boje et al., 2001;
Hassard et al., 2001; Jermier and Clegg, 1994), whether CMS aims to produce more ‘human’ and ethical
management practices or is against management altogether (e.g. Adler et al., 2007; Parker, 2002), etc.
3 For a defence of the accusation that CMS has advocated an anti-performative stance see Alvesson et al.
(2009).
4 For Spicer et al. (2009: 541–543) anti-performativity is rather problematic as it: conflicts with attempts
to promote social change and to engage with practitioners and mainstream management; causes CMS
to have a consistently negative position making it unable to claim what it desires; forces CMS to be
trapped and dependent on what it critiques and is contradictory to the fact that CMS research is pro-
duced with performative goals such as academics aiming for career growth through publication.
Moreover, in order ‘to do its business’ it relies on a series of performativities within society (e.g. flights
being affordable and on schedule, conference hotels hosting conferences efficiently, publishers paying
copyright fees expediently, etc.).
5 The roots of ANT can also be traced back to the works of Michel Serres, Algirdas Greimas, Isabelle
Stengers, Gabriel Tarde, Harold Garfinkel (for insights on these influences see e.g. Brown and
Capdevila, 1999; Latour, 2001, 2005c; Law, 2007). Michel Foucault is also a source of inspiration, but
ANT theorists have tried to make clear the difference between their work and his (see Law, 1992, 1994,
1999b; Mol, 2002).
6 This being the title of both a ‘summit’ conference held at Keele University (UK) in 1997 (to explore
problematic issues in ANT, and attended by notables such as Michel Callon, Donna Haroway, Bruno
Latour, John Law, Annemarie Mol and Marilyn Strathern, among many others) as well as an edited book
based on selected papers from that conference (see Law and Hassard, 1999)
7 Bruno Latour’s discussions about ‘social construction’ have a long history going back to at least the
1985 edition of Laboratory Life which dropped ‘social’ from the subtitle.
8 Law (2002: 159) suggests that enactment means ‘the claim that relations, and so, realities … are being
endlessly or chronically brought into being in a continuous process of production and reproduction, and
have no status, standing, or reality outside those processes’.
9 For Latour (2004c: 454) ‘The strength of one element checks any dulling in the strength of the other.
The presence of cosmos in cosmopolitics resists the tendency of politics to mean the give-and-take in
Alcadipani and Hassard 431

an exclusive human club. The presence of politics in cosmopolitics resists the tendency of cosmos to
mean a finite list of entities that must be taken into account. Cosmos protects against the premature
closure of politics, and politics against the premature closure of the cosmos’.
10 If we consider that ANT is, as Mol (1999) suggests, ‘multiple’, the view presented here is just one pos-
sibility among many others.
11 We draw this argument from Latour (2005) who in turn draws on Tarde (1999) to argue that entities have
to differ, or become further articulated, in order to exist as long as existence relies on repetition through
difference (see Czarniawska, 2004; Latour, 2001, 2005c, 2009). Although for Tarde repetition is a key
process to understanding societies, rather than seeing repetition as a simple mechanical copy, it is per-
ceived as an adaptation of one idea or action. As a result, every adaptation is different from the next—
repetition implies difference and therefore transformation (Czarniawska, 2004).
12 This is the name given to the unit of trade union organization at the workshop level. This term’s origin is
associated with the fact that printing was first developed in monasteries and churches. That is why the
head of trade union representatives on the shop floor is traditionally called the Father of the Chapel. For
a detailed examination of Chapel functions see Sykes (1960).
13 In discussing the possibilities of CP, Spicer et al. (2009: 550) curiously draw on insights from Bruno
Latour, even though Whittle and Spicer (2008) argue that ANT cannot deliver a critical perspective in
MOS.
14 This is basically the CMS Division mission statement, Academy of Management, USA.
15 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
For a discussion on how ontological politics can be used ‘to make a difference’ in management educa-
tion, see Hitchin and Maksymiw (2009).

References

Ackroyd, S.(2004) ‘Less Bourgeois Than Thou? A Critical Review of Studying Management Critically’,
Ephemera 4(2): 165–70.
Adler, P. (2002) ‘Critical in the Name of Whom and What?’ Organization 9(1): 387–95.
Adler, P.S., Forbes, L. and Willmott, H. (2007) ‘On Critical Management Studies’, in A. Brief and J. Walsh
(eds) The Annals of the Academy of Management. London: Routledge.
Alvesson, M. (2008) ‘The Future of Critical Management Studies’, in D. Barry and H. Hansen (eds) The Sage
Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization, pp. 13–30. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992) Critical Management Studies. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996) Making Sense of Management. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T. and Willmott, H. (2009) ‘Introduction’, in M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman and
H. Willmott (eds) Handbook of Critical Management Studies. London: Sage.
Amsterdamska, O. (1999) ‘Surely You Are Joking, Monsieur Latour!’ Science, Technology, and Human
Values 15(4): 445–63.
Aush, R. (2000) ‘Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (book review)’, Mind, Culture,
and Activity 7(4): 312–19.
Bendix, R. (1956) Work and Authority in Industry. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bloomfield, B. P. and Vurdubakis, T. (1999) ‘The Outer Limits: Monsters, Actor Networks and the Writing of
Displacement’, Organization 6(4): 625–47.
Bloomfield, B. P. and Best, A. (1992) ‘Management Consultants: System Development, Power and the
Translation Problems’, Sociological Review 40(3): 533–60.
Bloomfield, B. P. and Vurdubakis, T. (1994) ‘Re-Presenting Technology—It Consultancy Reports as Textual
Reality Constructions’, Sociology 28(2): 455–77.
Bohn, S. and Spoelstra, S. (2004) ‘No Critique’, Ephemera 4(2): 94–100.
Braverman, H. (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
432 Organization 17(4)

Brown, S. and Capdevilla, R. (1999) ‘Perpetum Mobile: Substance, Force and the Sociology of Translation’, in
J. Law and J. Hassard (eds) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell/The Sociological Review.
Calás, M. B. and Smircich, L. (1999) ‘Past Postmodernism? Reflections and Tentative Directions’, Academy
of Management Review 24(4): 649–71.
Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation—Domestication of the Scallops and the
Fishermen of St-Brieuc Bay’, in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?,
pp.196–223. London: Routledge,
Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1981) ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality
and How Sociologists Help Them Do So’, in K. Knorr-Cetina and A. Cicourel (eds) Advances in Social
Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, pp. 277–303. London:
Routledge.
Callon, M. and Law, J. (1982) ‘On Interests and Their Transformation—Enrollment and Counter-Enrollment’,
Social Studies of Science 12(4): 615–25.
Cooper, R. and Law, J. (1995) ‘Organization: Distal and Proximal Views’, in S. B. Bacharach, P. Gagliardi and
B. Mundell (eds) Research in the Sociology of Organization. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Czarniawska, B. (2009) ‘Commentary: STS Meets MOS’, Organization 16(1): 155–60.
Czarniawska, B. (2004) ‘Gabriel Tarde and Big City Management’, Distinktion 9(1): 81–95.
Czarniawska, B. (2006) ‘Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory’, Organization
Studies 27(10): 1553–57.
Czarniawska, B. and Hernes, T. (2005) Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. Malmo: Liber and Copenhagen
Business School Press.
Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (2000) ‘At the Critical Moment: Conditions and Prospects for Critical Management
Studies’, Human Relations 53(1):7–32
Grey, C. (2007) ‘Possibilities for Critical Management Education and Studies’, Scandinavian Journal of
Management 23(4): 463–71.
Grey, C. and Willmott, H. (2002) ‘Context of CMS’, Organization 9(3): 411–18.
Grey, C. and Willmott, H. (2005) ‘Introduction’, in C. Grey and H. Willmott (eds) Critical Management
Studies: A Reader, pp. 1–20. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grint, K. (1991) The Sociology of Work. Cambridge: Polity.
Haraway, D. J. (2008) When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
Haraway, D. J. (1992) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hassard, J. Hogan, J. and Rowlingson, M. (2001) From Labour Process Theory to Critical Management
Studies’, Administrataive Theory and Praxis 23(3): 339–62.
Hassard, J, Kelemen, M and Cox, W. J. (2008) Disorganization Theory: Explorations in Alternative
Organizational Analysis. London: Routledge.
Hassard, J. and Parker, M. (1993) Postmodernism and Organizations. London: Sage.
Hinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M. et al. (2005) ‘Urban Wild Things: A Cosmopolitical Experiment’, Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 23(3): 643–58.
Hine, C. (1995) ‘Representations of Information Technology in Disciplinary Development: Disappearing
Plants and Invisible Networks’, Science, Technology and Human Values 20(1): 65–85.
Hitchin, L. and Maksymiw, W. (2009) STS in Management Education: Connecting Theory and Practice’,
Organization 16(1): 57–80.
Hull, R. (1999) ‘Actor Network and Conduct: The Discipline and Practices of Knowledge Management’,
Organization 6(3): 405–28.
Jermier, J. and Clegg, S. (1994) Crossroads: Critical Issues in Organization Science—A Dialogue’, Organization
Science 5(1): 1–13.
Alcadipani and Hassard 433

Knox, H., O’Doherty, D., et al. (2007) ‘Knowledge Traffic’ and the Performance of Organization: A Study
of Knowledge in Flight’, paper presented at the European Group of Organization Analysis. (July)
Vienna.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
Latour, B. (1988a) The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1988b) ‘A Relativistic Account of Einstein’s Relativity’. Social Studies of Science 18(1): 3–44.
Latour, B. (1997) ‘Trains of Thought—Piaget, Formalism and the Fifth Dimension’, Common Knowledge
6(3): 170–91.
Latour, B. (1999a) ‘For David Bloor ... and Beyond: A Reply to David Bloor’s “Anti-Latour’’’, Studies in
History and Philosophy of Science 30(1): 113–29.
Latour, B. (1999b) ‘On Recalling ANT’, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds) Actor Network Theory and After,
pp. 15–26. Oxford: Blackwell/The Sociological Review.
Latour, B. (1999c) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Latour, B. (2001) ‘Gabriel Tarde and the End of the Social’, Soziale Welt-Zeitschrift Fur Sozialwissenschaftliche
Forschung Und Praxis 52(3): 361–78.
Latour, B. (2002) War of the Worlds—What About Peace? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (2003) ‘What if We Talked Politics a Little?’, Contemporary Political Theory 2(2): 143–64.
Latour, B. (2004a) ‘How to Talk about the Body? The Normative Dimension of Science Studies’, Body and
Society 10(2/3): 205–29.
Latour, B. (2004b) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Latour, B. (2004c) ‘Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics?: Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck’,
Common Knowledge 10(3): 450–62.
Latour, B. (2005a) ‘From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik: How to Make Things Public’, in B. Latour and P. Weibel
(eds) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Latour, B. (2004b) ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’,
Critical Inquiry 30(2): 225–48.
Latour, B. (2005c) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Latour, B. (2007a) ‘Can We Get Our Materialism Back, Please?’, Isis 98(1): 138–42.
Latour, B. (2007b) ‘Making the Res Public (Interview done by Tomas Sanchez-Criado’, Ephemera: Theory
and Politics in Organization 7(2): 364–71.
Latour, B. (2007c) ‘Turning Around Politics A Note on Gerard de Vries’ Paper’, Social Studies of Science
37(5): 811–20.
Law, J. (1986) ‘On the Methods of Long-Distance Control—Vessels, Navigation and the Portuguese Route to
India’, in J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, pp. 234–63. London:
Routledge.
Law, J. (1988) ‘The Anatomy of a Sociotechnical Struggle: The Design of the TSR2’, in B. Elliot (ed.)
Technology and Social Process, pp. 44–69. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Law, J. (1991) ‘Introduction’ in J. Law (ed.) Monsters, Machines and Sociotechnical Relations. A Sociology
of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, pp. 1–23. London: Routledge.
Law, J. (1992) ‘Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Networking: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity’, Systems
Practice 5(3): 379–93.
Law, J. (1994) Organizing Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
434 Organization 17(4)

Law, J. (1997a) The Manager and His Powers. Available from: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/
papers/Law-Manager-and-his-Powers.pdf (accessed 18 October 2005).
Law, J. (1997b) Heterogeneities. Available from: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-
Heterogeneities.pdf (accessed 11 December 2004).
Law, J. (1999a) ‘After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology’, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds) Actor
Network Theory and After, pp. 1–14. Oxford: Blackwall/Sociological Review.
Law, J. (1999b) Objects, Spaces and Others. Available from: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/
Law-Objects-Spaces-Others.pdf (accessed 10 May 2004).
Law, J. (2002) ‘Objects and Spaces’, Theory Culture and Society 19(5–6): 91–106.
Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
Law, J. (2007) Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. Available from: http://www.heterogeneities.
net/publications/Law ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf (accessed 5 September 2007).
Law, J. (2008) ‘On Sociology and STS’, Sociological Review 56(4): 623–49.
Law, J. and Hassard, J. (1999) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell/Sociological Review.
Law, J. and Urry, J. (2004) ‘Enacting the Social’, Economy and Society 33(3): 390–410.
Law, J. and Mol, A. (2008) ‘Globalisation in Practice: On the Politics of Boiling Pigswill’, Geoforum 39(2):
133–43.
Law, J. and Singleton, V. (2005) ‘Object Lessons’, Organization 12(3): 331–55.
Lee, N. and J. Hassard (1999) ‘Organization Unbound: Actor-Network Theory, Research Strategy and
Institutional Flexibility’, Organization 6(3): 391–404.
McKinlay, A and Starkey, K. (1998) Foucault, Management and Organization Theory. London: Sage.
McLean, C. and Hassard, J. (2004) ‘Symmetrical Absence/Symmetrical Absurdity: Critical Notes on the
Production of Actor-Network Accounts’, Journal of Management Studies 41(3): 493–519.
Messner, M., Clegg, S. and Kornberger, M. (2008) ‘Critical Practices in Organizations’, Journal of
Management Inquiry 17(2): 68–82.
Mol, A. (1999) ‘Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions’, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds) Actor
Network Theory and After, pp. 123–62. Oxford: Blackwall/Sociological Review.
Mol, A. (2002) The Body Multiple: Atherosclerosis in Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mol, A. (2008) The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. London: Routledge.
Parker, M (2002) Against Management: Organization in the Age of Managerialism. Cambridge: Polity.
Prasad, A. (2003) Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Routledge, P. (2008) ‘Acting in the Network: ANT and the Politics of Generating Associations’, Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 26(1): 199–217.
Reed, M. I. (1997) ‘In Praise of Duality and Dualism: Rethinking Agency and Structure in Organizational
Analysis’, Organization Studies 18(1): 21–42.
Spicer, A. Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2009) ‘Critical Performativity: The Unfinished Business of
Critical Management Studies’, Human Relations 62(4): 537–60.
Spicer, A. and Böhm, S. (2007) ‘Moving Management: Theorizing Struggles Against the Hegemony of
Management’, Organization Studies 28(11): 1667–98.
Star, L. (1991) ‘Power, Technologies and the Phenomenology of Conventions: Of Being Allergic to Onions’,
in J. Law (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London:
Routledge.
Star, L. and Griesemer, J. (1989) ‘Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and
Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39’, Social Studies of Science 19(3):
387–420.
Stengers, I. (1997) Power and Invention: Situating Science, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Alcadipani and Hassard 435

Strathern, M. (1991) Partial Connections. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Sykes, A. J. M. (1960) ‘Trade-Union Workshop Organization in the Printing Industry—The Chapel’, Human
Relations 13(1): 49–65.
Tarde, Gabriel (1962) The Laws of Imitation, trans. E. C. Parsons, Introduction by F. Giddings. Reprint.
Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
Thompson, L. S. (1957) ‘The Customs of the Chapel’, The Journal of American Folklore 60(238): 329–44.
Thompson, P. (2004) ‘Brands, Boundaries and Bandwagons: A Critical Reflection on Critical Management
Studies’, in S. Fleetwood and S. Ackroyd (eds) Critical Realist Applications in Organization and
Management Studies. London: Routledge.
Thompson, P. and O’Doherty, D. (2009) ‘Perspectives on Labor Process’, in M. Alvesson, T. Bridgman and
H. Willmott (eds) Handbook of Critical Management Studies. Sage: London.
Verran, H. (1999) ‘Staying True to the Laughter in Nigerian Classrooms’, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds) Actor
Network and After, pp. 136–55. Oxford: Blackwell and the Sociological Review.
Vidgen, D and McMaster, S. (1996) ‘Black Boxes, Non-Human Stakeholders and the Translation of IT’,
in W. Orlikowski, G. Walsham, M. R. Jones and J. I. DeGross (eds) Information Technology and Changes
in Organizational Work. London: Chapman and Hall.
Walshman, G. (1997) ‘Actor-Network Theory and IS Research: Current Status and Future Prospects’,
in A. Lee, J. Liebenau and J. Degross (eds) Information Systems and Qualitative Research. London:
Chapman and Hall.
Whittle, A. and Spicer, A. (2008) ‘Is Actor Network Theory Critical?’, Organization Studies 29(1): 611–29.
Willmott, H. (1995) ‘What’s Been Happening in Organization Theory and Does it Matter?’, Personnel Review
24(1): 51–71.
Woolgar, S., Coopmans, C. and Neyland, D. (2009) ‘Does STS Mean Business?’, Organization 16(1): 5–30.
Wray-Bliss, E. (2004) ‘A Right to Respond? Monopolisation of “Voice” in CMS’, Ephemera 4(2): 32–45.

Biographies
Rafael Alcadipani is Associated Professor of Organizational Studies in the Sao Paulo School of
Management of Getulio Vargas Foundation (EAESP-FGV) in Brazil. He is also Visiting Researcher
at Manchester Business School, Associate Editor to Critical Perspectives on International Business
and has acted as a representative at large in the Academy of Management Critical Management
Studies Division . He gained his PhD at Manchester Business School. His research interests are
post-structuralism, ethnography and post-colonialism in organizational studies. Address: EAESP-
FGV, Rua Itapeva, 474 – 11º andar – CEP 01332-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. [email: Rafael.
Alcadipani@fgv.br]

John Hassard is Professor of Organizational Analysis. He also holds a visiting position as Senior
Research Associate at the Judge Business School, Cambridge University. Previously he taught and
researched at the London Business School and the universities of Cardiff and Keele. Before com-
mencing an academic career, Professor Hassard trained as an equities dealer on the Northern Stock
Exchange. His main research interests lie in the areas of organizational analysis and industrial
change/development. His research has resulted in the publication of 13 books, over 50 articles in
edited collections, and more than 70 articles in journals such as Organization, Organization
Studies, Journal of Management Studies and Human Relations. Professor Hassard is a Board
Member of the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and serves on the editorial
boards of eight major academic journals. Address: Manchester Business School, The University of
Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK. [email: John.Hassard@mbs.ac.uk]

View publication stats